How did she - and many others - convince themselves that wrapping themselves in the skin of dead animals is "comfortable and it satisfies the tactile sense"??
While today we humans don't really need to kill animals to put clothes on ourselves at one time through history we did. Animal pelts were the only thing that humans had to clothe themselves with so that was a necessary thing to do. While many people today see killing animals for clothing is unnecessary there are still those who consider animal pelts as something that they enjoy having. Thankfully not many think this way or there wouldn't be many animals left in nature that have warm pelts. These animal pelts, over time, do go very bad and start to decay away and rot. So by having them around you sometimes smell some very foul odors when they do go bad on you.
A better way to look at belief is probably to do what seems best according to what one knows and not to think of it in terms of trying to believe in something. I have considered ways of trying to keep warm, and it very much looks like there might not be anything that beats the point where nature has gotten fur to, with regard to overall effectiveness. I have actually been contemplating that fur might come back into use in society, mainly out of necessity. Like Pincho Paxton mentioned, people very much might find it hard to keep warm in times of scarcer civil energy supplies. Also, some of the synthetic materials, especially nano-scale ones, pose potential harmful health effects. Unfortunately, it can just be hard to find effective substitutes for exploiting animals. Humans are pretty dependent on what animals provide for our lives. For example, it is hard to do without nutrients that come from animal meat. All the things people say are as good as meat, I haven't been able to agree about, and I dislike the idea of eating meat, even fish. Yet I haven't come upon a better option.
Soybeans are considered by many agencies to be a source of complete protein. A complete protein is one that contains significant amounts of all the essential amino acids that must be provided to the human body because of the body's inability to synthesize them. For this reason, soy is a good source of protein, amongst many others, for vegetarians and vegans or for people who want to reduce the amount of meat they eat. According to the US Food and Drug Administration: Soy protein products can be good substitutes for animal products because, unlike some other beans, soy offers a 'complete' protein profile. ... Soy protein products can replace animal-based foods—which also have complete proteins but tend to contain more fat, especially saturated fat—without requiring major adjustments elsewhere in the diet. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...yL6A0qAYYBs2740qQ&sig2=U7TCLg7AVMqj9G6nDFN0pA
Many things wrong with animal pelts which todays synthetic fibers overcome but down is still the best. Contrary to popular belief, down insulation is not made of feathers. Instead, down is actually the fluffy undercoating of a bird's plumage (geese, ducks, and other waterfowl) and looks like interlocking wisps of dandelion fluff. Down works for you just like it works for the bird; it keeps you warm by trapping an abundance of body heat within its tiny clusters. And because it is also breathable, down allows unwanted moisture to escape. Quick Guide to Down Pros •Is warmer than synthetic insulation ounce for ounce. No manmade fiber matches down in its warmth-to-weight ratio. •Retains its shape and loft and, with proper care, can last a lifetime. No synthetic can beat down's longevity. Down holds up better over years of use. •Wicks body moisture and allows it to evaporate. Moisture wicking goes a long way in keeping you comfortable. •Is highly compressible and lightweight. Although synthetic insulation has come a long way, it doesn't hold a candle to down's ultralight weight and amazing compressibility. Down is the preferred choice for backpackers who want to travel light in dry conditions. Down also comes in a number of different grades (or qualities). For example, a 90% goose down garment will consist of 90% down and 10% feathers. The higher the percentage is, the purer the down will be. High percentage grade insulation will also be very low in weight and bulk, but higher in price. The Bottom Line Down is Mother Nature's best insulator. It provides incredible warmth for minimal weight and is highly compressible and resilient; but it comes at a price. Quick Guide to Synthetics Pros •Is water resistant and provides insulation when wet. Synthetic fills are, at the very least, resistant to moisture while many will actually shed water rather than absorb it. These water-resisting properties allow the synthetic fill to retain the majority of its insulating properties when wet. •Dries quickly. When a synthetic fill does get wet, the moisture is trapped in the air pockets between the fibers rather than in the fibers themselves. For this reason, synthetic fills will dry much faster than down fills-usually in a matter of minutes in direct sunlight. •Is generally less expensive than down. Unless geese start lowering prices on down, synthetic insulation will always be cheaper than its natural counterpart. •Is easy to care for. Most synthetic fill sleeping bags or garments are machine washable and dryable. •Is completely hypoallergenic. Because synthetics are manmade, they are, for the most part, hypoallergenic. •Offers a greater range of options for those on a budget. Synthetic fills vary greatly in durability, bulk, weight, and price so there are more options available for beginning hikers or children who quickly outgrow their clothes. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Ywg47Momp7PpyXCVw&sig2=EY6j44N0pHXCt56LY3xj4Q
That's not the issue. Animal fur works the best because it evolved over millions of years to suit an animal in cold conditions. It's soft, flexible, durable, and breathable. Quite apart from any ethical issues, there is a visceral reaction to this material in most people. We have loved it throughout history. You might as well ask how do you convince yourself to enjoy bacon or ice cream or sex?
How did you convince yourself that your like or dislike of killing animals and wearing their hide is good or bad? If you are appalled at the notion of killing an animal and eating it, and using the hide for clothing, you have forgotten where you came from. Should animals such as lions stop killing and eating other animals because your little feelings are hurt?
I began to wonder if the phytoestrogen in the the soy was causing uncomfortable side effects on me. The article mentions reduction of prostate cancer, but I suspect it can increase the risk for breast cancer, which men sometimes get. Then I think of what is involved in processing seeds, including grains like wheat, into an easily edible form. Our bodies aren't well adapted to such diets because that type of practice began with farming, a late occurrence in our evolution. It adds to mine and other folks' conclusion that those foods are not the best types because our adaptation to them isn't complete. I used to use pretty much soy meal, but have cut way back. I find polyester fill in my one pillow to be doing well and it seems to be holding its shape. Another pillow supposedly containing polyester fibers has gotten them flattened, but I still use it where that actually turns out to be an advantage.
Don't like killing little cute baby seals? Try nutria fur: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/07/style-new-york-fashion-week-nutria-rat?hpt=hp_bn13
It's funny that people cringe at the thought of killing a cute little baby kitten, and in the next breath stomp the life out of a cock roach. So according to that logic, ugly needs to die and cute needs to be protected. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nutria are cute, but they are also pests in some places. Might as well use their fur. It must be good stuff because I see them around all the time in the middle of winter.
Did I say that? Are you saying that it's OK to kill cock roaches, but not OK to kill a cute little baby kitten?
To decide whether something is comfortable and satisfies the tactile sense, a person puts that particular thing in contact with their skin and then thinks about whether the sensory experience produced is pleasant or not. I'm struggling to see how that isn't blindingly obvious. The statement doesn't contain anything that overtly states or even implicitly suggests that tactile comfort is a function of how ethical the production of the material was. If you wanted to discuss whether fur is ethical, moral or what have you, it would be better to quote someone who says "fur isn't cruel", and then address your objections to that. For example, a cannibal might say "human flesh tastes like pork", and there's no reason to think that is incorrect just because it's virtually always wrong to murder people. Those cannibals didn't have to "convince themselves" that tasting porky is perfectly equivalent to "the Right thing to do". All they had to do was put it in their mouth and have nerves connecting between their brain and taste buds. It's a separate issue, and disagreeing with one does nothing to cast doubt on the other. Surely even someone with an "axe to grind" isn't completely blind to that? So why don't you start again, find a statement that's actually related to whatever you really wanted to lecture people about and address your concerns to that? Personally I think fur is warm, but too heavy for all but the most severe climates, and a bit smelly. Whether I would find myself dwelling on the suffering of the animal is irrelevant to the issue of the the physical characteristics of the material. Though both aspects affect whether someone likes fur, the two aspects don't affect each other. Fur is no less comfortable just because it is cruel. Just like if you're comparing whether an abacus or an ipad can perform more calculations per minute, it doesn't help to answer that question to start going on about the inhumane conditions the Chinese workers have to suffer to pay their rent. They're separate questions. The real issue, which you appear to have somehow totally avoided, is whether the supposed benefits of fur justify the ethical "cost". I don't think it does in any case where synthetics are an adequate replacement, but I'm not going to pretend the physical characteristics of fur change depending on how humanely it was harvested, because that's bullshit.
No, I think from an ethical point of view killing a mammal with a comparable emotional repertoire to ours is worse than killing an insect which has a nervous system about as complex as a desktop pc from the mid 90s. I was asking you a question about whether you think that enters into it. If you don't want to answer, just say so.
That's your take on the situation, which is valid in our society, but beyond that is totally worthless. So what, you value the life of a cat more than a cock roach. The cock roach values his life more than yours and the cat's. As far as the cock roach is concerned, your life is worth nothing and his is worth everything. I can see many differences between a cat and a cock roach. Can you see a difference between the planet we call earth that you evolved from, and yourself?
Because it's not. What we find pleasurable or not is affected by conditioning. For example, nobody likes their first sip of coffee or their first puff from a cigarette. Normally, they taste disgusting. It requires willpower to continue drinking and smoking. Until one eventually arrives at liking drinking coffee and smoking. Another example, someone who has never heard opera singing might find it to be a meaningless torture. But not everyone experiences it that way. Hence the idea of cultivating one's tastes. Humans are also moral creatures, not just sensual ones, and moral concerns play a part in what they find pleasurable or not. Your kindness is overflowing, sir. :bugeye:
